The 53rd session of the UN General Assembly, which opens today will inevitably be dominated by two issues: Iraq and reform of the organization itself — specifically the veto and who sits on the Security Council. They are inextricably linked. Iraq was not the first time the UN failed to fulfill international expectations and prevent a conflict, which most of its members opposed, but Iraq has been its most damaging failure. Inevitably that failure and now the stalemate on Washington’s plans for a Security Council resolution on UN involvement in Iraq have fuelled demands that the UN be made more effective. Rightly so. Never has the case for reform been more pressing even though many complaints against the organization — notably inefficiency, bureaucracy and expense — are downright unfair. It employs no more staff than Stockholm; its annual budget is far less than the Pentagon spends in a single week. But these are diversions. The UN is of no use if it is a venue for stalemate and high-profile clashes of opinions. What is the point of an organization that passes resolutions, which are then ignored? The UN has to deliver the real task the world expects of it — to legitimize the international will. World lawmaker, peacemaker, peace enforcer.

Reform inevitably takes in many specifics. Should there be permanent members — of whom two are members of the European Union? What about India, Brazil or Japan? Should there be vetoes? If they have to remain — it is impossible to see the US, Russia or China ever agreeing to give them up — why not extend the right to regional blocks — a European veto, an African veto, an Arab veto, a Latin American veto, an Asian veto? There are other issues that need to be addressed: What are the criteria that would allow the Security Council to permit the use of force? Should the UN have a standing army? Should its headquarters be moved from New York? There is another, deeper question that needs to be debated: What is sovereignty and where does it reside — with member states or does the UN have overriding sovereignty? In other words, is the UN the servant of its 191 member states or, when countries are mired in war or tyranny, their master? If it does have sovereignty, should it be seen as a global Parliament with elections for members? Some experts, such as former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, are even more radical and think it is time to replace the organization altogether with a new international body with links to NGOs and the multinationals. There are many who would draw a line at this last suggestion but at least it contributes to the debate on the UN’s role and future. Unfortunately, there seems little chance that any reform is going to happen in the foreseeable future.